http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104

This was on my local news last night. I gotta wonder if the approach
controller told the local controller that there was an emergency
declared, it didn't appear on the video but my have been edited out.

Bottom line, the AA pilot owned the airport, he should have made a bee
line for 17 center and landed the plane. They were lucky that whatever
fuel issue they had didn't cause a disaster in the extra minutes flying
a pattern to the opposite runway.

I've had one emergency in my flying career and the tower we declared
with was great. Everyone got shooed out of the airspace or landed and
we owned the airport.. cleared to land any runway. They equipment was
waiting for us (which fortunately we didn't need) and other than giving
name/phone numbers that's the last we heard of it.

If you (any of you) have a serious doubt to the safe outcome of the
flight, don't be afraid to declare the emergency and do whatever it
takes to get yourself and your passengers safely on the ground.

Robert


Sam Spade wrote:
> http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104
>

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade wrote
(in article >):

>
http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&cat

> Id=104

It appears somebody forgot what pilot in command means.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2/23/2007 9:01 AM, Robert Chambers wrote the following:
> I gotta wonder if the approach
> controller told the local controller that there was an emergency
> declared, it didn't appear on the video but my have been edited out.
>

and what was AA squawking? A 7700 should have made sure everyone knew.

Mitty wrote:

> On 2/23/2007 9:01 AM, Robert Chambers wrote the following:
>
>> I gotta wonder if the approach controller told the local controller
>> that there was an emergency declared, it didn't appear on the video
>> but my have been edited out.
>>
>
> and what was AA squawking? A 7700 should have made sure everyone knew.

That would have gotten their attention, too.

Doesn't matter what he was squawking.. he was on a discrete squawk
anyway so they knew who he was. He declared an emergency, that's all it
takes to get anything you need to meet your situation.

Mitty wrote:
> On 2/23/2007 9:01 AM, Robert Chambers wrote the following:
>
>> I gotta wonder if the approach controller told the local controller
>> that there was an emergency declared, it didn't appear on the video
>> but my have been edited out.
>>
>
> and what was AA squawking? A 7700 should have made sure everyone knew.

Yeah, that is what struck me about the video, the approach controller didn't
mention "emergency" in the phone call to tower controller. It that indeed
happened, I wouldn't put much blame on ATC, except the approach controller.
I'm thinking that runway assignment and suitable vectors would have been in
use befor AA crew ever talked to tower freq.

I first expected the video to show yet another "ahhhh approach we got us
here this little ol' situation and we're just wondering how ol' 17 center is
lookin..." that some pilots seem determined to use when they have an
emerigency. I understand the psychological need to keep a lid on things,
and understand denial as well as the next guy, but many pilots need to
better understand that declaring an emergency should come more easily than
they often assume.

--

Scott

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> and what was AA squawking? A 7700 should have made sure everyone knew.
>

No more so than declaring it via the radio.

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Doesn't matter what he was squawking.. he was on a discrete squawk anyway
> so they knew who he was. He declared an emergency, that's all it takes to
> get anything you need to meet your situation.
>

Well, that's all it SHOULD have taken.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> No more so than declaring it via the radio.

Actually, a radio declaration would make it more obvious, as only ATC sees
squawk codes, whereas everyone in the area hears radio transmissions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article >, Mitty >
wrote:

> On 2/23/2007 9:01 AM, Robert Chambers wrote the following:
> > I gotta wonder if the approach
> > controller told the local controller that there was an emergency
> > declared, it didn't appear on the video but my have been edited out.
> >
>
> and what was AA squawking? A 7700 should have made sure everyone knew.

If you've already told the controller you have an emergency, squawking 7700
doesn't add anything to the situation. The 7700 stuff is for when you're
out of radio contact.

tscottme wrote:

> Yeah, that is what struck me about the video, the approach controller didn't
> mention "emergency" in the phone call to tower controller. It that indeed
> happened, I wouldn't put much blame on ATC, except the approach controller.
> I'm thinking that runway assignment and suitable vectors would have been in
> use befor AA crew ever talked to tower freq.
>
> I first expected the video to show yet another "ahhhh approach we got us
> here this little ol' situation and we're just wondering how ol' 17 center is
> lookin..." that some pilots seem determined to use when they have an
> emerigency. I understand the psychological need to keep a lid on things,
> and understand denial as well as the next guy, but many pilots need to
> better understand that declaring an emergency should come more easily than
> they often assume.
>

You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.

ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.

The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And,
then the trolly is on the track.

If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will
give him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that
hopefully should not be needed.

On 2/23/2007 6:21 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:

> If you've already told the controller you have an emergency, squawking 7700
> doesn't add anything to the situation. The 7700 stuff is for when you're
> out of radio contact.

Au contraire. With a 7700 squawk then if the emergency situation wasn't
mentioned in the handoff (which it possibly wasn't) then the next controller
would still have known something was seriously wrong.

(Now possibly if AA had squawked 7700 he would have been asked to switch off
that code at some point, but we don't even know from the video whether he tried it.)

Sam Spade writes:

> If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
> pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will
> give him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that
> hopefully should not be needed.

Fortunately, in practice, ATC will bend over backwards to accommodate any
aircraft with an emergency, and so will other pilots.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

He declared an emergency, but somewhere along the line the ball got
dropped. The pilot shouldn't have to plead his case and hope for the
best, he's got an emergent condition to deal with and the life of his
crew and passengers to worry about.

When he got stick from the local controller he should have repeated his
emergency declaration and done whatever he needed to do to meet that
situation. A tower controller can clear the airspace of aircraft fairly
expediently if they want to.

If he had flamed out on a wide downwind and not made it back to the
runway he'd have been crucified for "not doing everything in his power
to deal with the emergency"

If I were the pilot, and AA, I'd be plenty ****ed at the controller, and
from what else is coming out, the FAA supervisor who makes the decisions
that the local controller is not allowed to.

Hopefully this won't happen again eh?



Mitty wrote:
> On 2/23/2007 6:21 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
>
>> If you've already told the controller you have an emergency, squawking
>> 7700 doesn't add anything to the situation. The 7700 stuff is for
>> when you're out of radio contact.
>
>
> Au contraire. With a 7700 squawk then if the emergency situation wasn't
> mentioned in the handoff (which it possibly wasn't) then the next
> controller would still have known something was seriously wrong.
>
> (Now possibly if AA had squawked 7700 he would have been asked to switch
> off that code at some point, but we don't even know from the video
> whether he tried it.)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
>>pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will
>>give him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that
>>hopefully should not be needed.
>
>
> Fortunately, in practice, ATC will bend over backwards to accommodate any
> aircraft with an emergency, and so will other pilots.
>
No **** Dick Tracy.

All true. BTW, the handoff on the video is between Center and Approach. Center
told the pilot that he was going to request 17C from Approach and that's what he
did. Apparently without mentioning the emergency.

On 2/23/2007 7:25 PM, Robert Chambers wrote the following:
> He declared an emergency, but somewhere along the line the ball got
> dropped. The pilot shouldn't have to plead his case and hope for the
> best, he's got an emergent condition to deal with and the life of his
> crew and passengers to worry about.
>
> When he got stick from the local controller he should have repeated his
> emergency declaration and done whatever he needed to do to meet that
> situation. A tower controller can clear the airspace of aircraft fairly
> expediently if they want to.
>
> If he had flamed out on a wide downwind and not made it back to the
> runway he'd have been crucified for "not doing everything in his power
> to deal with the emergency"
>
> If I were the pilot, and AA, I'd be plenty ****ed at the controller, and
> from what else is coming out, the FAA supervisor who makes the decisions
> that the local controller is not allowed to.
>
> Hopefully this won't happen again eh?
>
>
>
> Mitty wrote:
>> On 2/23/2007 6:21 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
>>
>>> If you've already told the controller you have an emergency,
>>> squawking 7700 doesn't add anything to the situation. The 7700 stuff
>>> is for when you're out of radio contact.
>>
>>
>> Au contraire. With a 7700 squawk then if the emergency situation
>> wasn't mentioned in the handoff (which it possibly wasn't) then the
>> next controller would still have known something was seriously wrong.
>>
>> (Now possibly if AA had squawked 7700 he would have been asked to
>> switch off that code at some point, but we don't even know from the
>> video whether he tried it.)

C J Campbell wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
> http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&cat
>
>
>>Id=104
>
>
> It appears somebody forgot what pilot in command means.
>

Actually, at least two people forgot.

Matt

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104

Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104
>
>
> Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

Not exactly.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
> worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.
>
> ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
> which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
>
> The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
> response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then
> the trolly is on the track.
>
> If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
> pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give
> him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully
> should not be needed.
>

"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
>>worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.
>>
>>ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
>>which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
>>
>>The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
>>response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then
>>the trolly is on the track.
>>
>>If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
>>pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give
>>him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully
>>should not be needed.
>>
>
>
> "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
> got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
> need to get on the ground, right away, please."
>
>
I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

"We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
should take additional direct action.

It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out
okay, but absolutely did not follow through.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
> taken as future intent.
>
> "We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
> emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
> i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
> should take additional direct action.
>
> It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out okay,
> but absolutely did not follow through.
>

The crew declared an emergency situation with that statement.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
>> which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
>>
>
> "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
> got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
> need to get on the ground, right away, please."

Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a
declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.

What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
avoided.

What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:58:51 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>> http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&c
>> at
>>
>>
>>> Id=104
>>
>>
>> It appears somebody forgot what pilot in command means.
>>
>
> Actually, at least two people forgot.

Indeed. Well, stuff happens when you get distracted by an emergency. ATC
needed to retrain their staff, but I hope that the chief pilot had a little
prayer meeting with the crew.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.

ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.

I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
since they can and do leave many things out.



"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
|
| >> ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of
minimum fuel,
| >> which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
| >>
| >
| > "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air
traffic control. "We
| > got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel
leak or what, but we
| > need to get on the ground, right away, please."
|
| Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as
anything less than a
| declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head
up and locked.
|
| What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some
inconvenience is
| avoided.
|
| What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field
and people die.
|
|
| --
| Dan
| C172RG at BFM
|
|

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message ...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
>> got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
>> need to get on the ground, right away, please."
>>
>>
> I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
> taken as future intent.

No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
>>>got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
>>>need to get on the ground, right away, please."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
>>taken as future intent.
>
>
> No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
> According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".
>

Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
>>>ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
>>>which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
>>>
>>
>>"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
>>got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
>>need to get on the ground, right away, please."
>
>
> Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a
> declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.

And, the PIC has to be sufficiently assertive to overcome that "up and
locked" syndrome.

Who has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of
the flight?
>
> What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
> avoided.
>
> What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.
>
>
Those are issues that the captain could have short-circuited.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
> wanted to be on the ground "right away."
>
> Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
> standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
> ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
> than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
> the way.

Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency
should be granted *if at all possible.*

Jim Macklin wrote:


>
> I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
> media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
> since they can and do leave many things out.
>

It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their
database.

Chances are the FAA won't publish anything.

Sam Spade wrote:

> John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic
>>>> control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel
>>>> leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can
>>> be taken as future intent.
>>
>>
>>
>> No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
>> According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".
>>
>
> Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.

Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot
wouldn't have changed that.

Matt

FOIA then.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| >
| > I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the
news
| > media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
| > since they can and do leave many things out.
| >
|
| It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't
find it in their
| database.
|
| Chances are the FAA won't publish anything.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
>>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic
>>>>> control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a
>>>>> fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away,
>>>>> please."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can
>>>> be taken as future intent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
>>> According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".
>>>
>>
>> Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.
>
>
> Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot
> wouldn't have changed that.
>

We seriously disagree on that one.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> FOIA then.
>
>
That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless you really
nail them down.

Then you nail them down.

BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport
and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are
stakeholders].


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > FOIA then.
| >
| >
| That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless
you really
| nail them down.

"Sam Spade" wrote:


>> Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than
>> a declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.
>
> And, the PIC has to be sufficiently assertive to overcome that "up and
> locked" syndrome.

That does not in any way excuse the improper actions of the controller.

> Who has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the
> flight?
>>
>> What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
>> avoided.
>>
>> What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.
>>
>>
> Those are issues that the captain could have short-circuited.

Nevertheless, he should not have needed to.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
>than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
>the way.

There's no reason I can think of that he could not have been cleared
for straight in from his position to the runway he requested; traffic
could have been moved out of the way without problem or incident --
delay, sure, but no problem or incident.

Rick

But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
plane with the emergency.


"Ricky Robbins" > wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
| >than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out
of
| >the way.
|
| There's no reason I can think of that he could not have
been cleared
| for straight in from his position to the runway he
requested; traffic
| could have been moved out of the way without problem or
incident --
| delay, sure, but no problem or incident.
|
| Rick

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
> wanted to be on the ground "right away."
>
> Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
> standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
> ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
> than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
> the way.
>

So he's north of the field, and you say it's faster to go to runway 35 than
to runway 17? Is the shortest distance between two points something other
than a straight line in your world?


>
> ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
> have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
> emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.
>

Which would be done by the time he arrives for runway 17.


>
> I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
> media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
> since they can and do leave many things out.
>

Perhaps, but the portion of the tape that was included shows the pilot
declared an emergency and was denied expeditious handling.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should
> be granted *if at all possible.*
>

Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.
>

No.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
> plane with the emergency.
>

Nonsense.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
> have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
> emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.

That only takes a few minutes. Besides, that's their job.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there is
always traffic at DFW.

Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does not
create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas.
It
| > wanted to be on the ground "right away."
| >
| > Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into
a
| > standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R,
then
| > ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away"
faster
| > than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft
out of
| > the way.
| >
|
| So he's north of the field, and you say it's faster to go
to runway 35 than
| to runway 17? Is the shortest distance between two points
something other
| than a straight line in your world?
|
|
| >
| > ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes
that
| > have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
| > emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.
| >
|
| Which would be done by the time he arrives for runway 17.
|
|
| >
| > I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the
news
| > media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
| > since they can and do leave many things out.
| >
|
| Perhaps, but the portion of the tape that was included
shows the pilot
| declared an emergency and was denied expeditious handling.
|
|

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.
>>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
turn out "wishy-washy?"

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
> plane with the emergency.

Only the pilot knows what he requires.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should
>>be granted *if at all possible.*
>>
>
>
> Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case.
>
>
>
Then, since you agree with that, why wasn't it "wishy-washy?"

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Then you nail them down.
>
> BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport
> and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are
> stakeholders].

I don't want to nail them down. ;-)

I make FOIAs when it is an issue of serious interest to me. This issue
is of passing interest.

From now on, from this day until Hell freezes over, only ONE
airplane allowed within 30 miles of any airport at any time,
this is the way they guarantee Air Force One immediate
landing priority.


It will of course reduce airport and system capacity. But
that is a minor price to pay, sort of like cutN run in Iraq,
we can have peace tomorrow if we are willing to surrender.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > But only the controllers know which would be fastest for
the
| > plane with the emergency.
| >
|
| Nonsense.
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

> But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
> plane with the emergency.
>

Jim, that is like saying controllers actually fly the airplane.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Sam Spade" wrote:

>>Those are issues that the captain could have short-circuited.
>
>
> Nevertheless, he should not have needed to.
>

I could not agree more. But, having been there and having had to do
that, it sometimes take the PIC to get the job done.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> From now on, from this day until Hell freezes over, only ONE
> airplane allowed within 30 miles of any airport at any time,
> this is the way they guarantee Air Force One immediate
> landing priority.

Help me understand what all this has to do with the issue of the AAL flight.
>

Jim Macklin wrote:

> IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there is
> always traffic at DFW.
>
> Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does not
> create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.

It is not a magic wand. It is respecting the PIC's needs expressed
with, or subsequent to, a declaration of emergency.

Had the collective ATC folks involved worked on getting the requested
runway available as they should have, then traffic would have had to be
handled as necessary.

Perhaps, in turn, that could have created other fuel emergencies
(although I doubt it). If that had been the case,then perhaps in turn
that would show that AAL and others have conned a weak FAA into letting
them cut back their dispatched reserve fuel requirements far too much.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there is
> always traffic at DFW.
>
> Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does not
> create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.
>

There is a tremendous difference between how ATC works and how you believe
ATC works.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
> turn out "wishy-washy?"
>

The declaration was not wishy-washy.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there is
> always traffic at DFW.
>
> Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does not
> create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.

In the real sky, traffic is very generously separated, and it's easy to move
it, as there is plenty of empty sky available.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Then you tell us all, in detail.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there
is
| > always traffic at DFW.
| >
| > Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does
not
| > create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.
| >
|
| There is a tremendous difference between how ATC works and
how you believe
| ATC works.
|
|

Because unless you clear the airspace, any clearance for an
aircraft in distress and declaring an emergency has to have
zero traffic conflicts.

They do that now, only for the President, a 30 NM radius.

DFW had lots of traffic, I'm pretty sure the AA flight got
the quickest landing possible.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > From now on, from this day until Hell freezes over, only
ONE
| > airplane allowed within 30 miles of any airport at any
time,
| > this is the way they guarantee Air Force One immediate
| > landing priority.
|
| Help me understand what all this has to do with the issue
of the AAL flight.
| >

A pilot declares an "emergency" and wants something done.
The pilot only knows what he can see on his panel, what he
has been told on the radio and therefore, his request may
not be THE solution to the problem.

My point is that ATC did get him on the ground safely. If
ATC had granted the pilot's request for 17 and it had taken
longer to clear the airspace and get him on the ground, ATC
would still be blamed.

BTW, has anybody heard what the problem actually was? [fuel
leak, bad gauges, PMS?]


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there
is
| > always traffic at DFW.
| >
| > Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does
not
| > create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.
|
| It is not a magic wand. It is respecting the PIC's needs
expressed
| with, or subsequent to, a declaration of emergency.
|
| Had the collective ATC folks involved worked on getting
the requested
| runway available as they should have, then traffic would
have had to be
| handled as necessary.
|
| Perhaps, in turn, that could have created other fuel
emergencies
| (although I doubt it). If that had been the case,then
perhaps in turn
| that would show that AAL and others have conned a weak FAA
into letting
| them cut back their dispatched reserve fuel requirements
far too much.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> DFW had lots of traffic, I'm pretty sure the AA flight got
> the quickest landing possible.
>

Nope. They were north of the field, so the quickest landing would be to the
south.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then you tell us all, in detail.
>

"Us all"? I'm pretty sure you're the only one that doesn't get it.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> My point is that ATC did get him on the ground safely. If
> ATC had granted the pilot's request for 17 and it had taken
> longer to clear the airspace and get him on the ground, ATC
> would still be blamed.
>

If ATC had granted the pilot's request for runway 17 it would have taken
less time to get him on the ground, not more. That's why he wanted runway
17.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Because unless you clear the airspace, any clearance for an
> aircraft in distress and declaring an emergency has to have
> zero traffic conflicts.

You don't need to clear the airspace. You just need to keep other aircraft
out of the way.

> They do that now, only for the President, a 30 NM radius.

What is done for the President is intended as a show of power; it has no
security justification.

> DFW had lots of traffic, I'm pretty sure the AA flight got
> the quickest landing possible.

How many aircraft were in the air, and where were they?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> A pilot declares an "emergency" and wants something done.
> The pilot only knows what he can see on his panel, what he
> has been told on the radio and therefore, his request may
> not be THE solution to the problem.

The pilot's decision is final. He decides on the solution, nobody else.

> My point is that ATC did get him on the ground safely.

Not unless the controller was Charlton Heston and had himself lowered into the
cockpit on a rope.

> If ATC had granted the pilot's request for 17 ...

ATC cannot withhold or grant requests to an aircraft that has declared an
emergency. It can only take note of the pilot's intentions and direct other
traffic and services appropriately.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> Au contraire. With a 7700 squawk then if the emergency situation wasn't
> mentioned in the handoff (which it possibly wasn't) then the next
> controller would still have known something was seriously wrong.
>
> (Now possibly if AA had squawked 7700 he would have been asked to switch
> off that code at some point, but we don't even know from the video whether
> he tried it.)
>

Code 7700 is assigned when the pilot declares an emergency and the aircraft
is not radar identified. Switching to 7700 when you're already radar
identified accomplishes nothing, with the possible exception of causing
confusion.

Only after the other traffic was out of the way. IF [the
unknown none of us know] the plane was a 5 minute out
straight in to 17 and it would take 11 minutes to clear all
the other airplanes out of the way, a hold would be
required.

What was the traffic count and where was each airplane,
which way do you turn them so they don't collide with the
airplane in distress or each other, what traffic was at the
other airports on the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and how would it
be effected?

So far, only the President of the United States gets
airspace that clear, all the time.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > DFW had lots of traffic, I'm pretty sure the AA flight
got
| > the quickest landing possible.
| >
|
| Nope. They were north of the field, so the quickest
landing would be to the
| south.
|
|

Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > My point is that ATC did get him on the ground safely.
If
| > ATC had granted the pilot's request for 17 and it had
taken
| > longer to clear the airspace and get him on the ground,
ATC
| > would still be blamed.
| >
|
| If ATC had granted the pilot's request for runway 17 it
would have taken
| less time to get him on the ground, not more. That's why
he wanted runway
| 17.
|
|

Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus hours,
FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
airports, sometimes on the same day. Have declared
emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
facilities.
Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD, and
other similar. I know that once you have a steady stream of
arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped. FAR priority does
not alter the laws of space, time or physics.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Then you tell us all, in detail.
| >
|
| "Us all"? I'm pretty sure you're the only one that
doesn't get it.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only after the other traffic was out of the way. IF [the
> unknown none of us know] the plane was a 5 minute out
> straight in to 17 and it would take 11 minutes to clear all
> the other airplanes out of the way, a hold would be
> required.
>
> What was the traffic count and where was each airplane,
> which way do you turn them so they don't collide with the
> airplane in distress or each other, what traffic was at the
> other airports on the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and how would it
> be effected?
>
> So far, only the President of the United States gets
> airspace that clear, all the time.
>

The other traffic would be out of the way by the time the plane arrived..

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.
>

What do you base that on? What is your ATC experience?

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Only after the other traffic was out of the way. IF [the
> unknown none of us know] the plane was a 5 minute out
> straight in to 17 and it would take 11 minutes to clear all
> the other airplanes out of the way, a hold would be
> required.
>

They don't have to have a sterile environment like they do for Air Force
One. As you say, no aircraft can be within 30 miles of the airport when
Air Force One is approaching or departing.

This is entirely different.

When I was flying the line I had only one genuine emergency and it was
on a clear day at ORD. We had just been shipped over to approach from
center. We told approach we needed 14R. They already knew the nature
of our emergency, having been briefed by the center. Once they were
directly aware of our need for 14R they gave us a new frequency.

Turns out we were the only flight on that frequency. We were about 25
miles out and pointed directly to 14R. We never heard about how they
cleared the way for us (we were too busy to care) but it was like we
owned the airport.

As we got fairly close in we could see aircraft using 14L, but 14R was
our's.

DFW has a better layout than ORD and the proper handling of a genuine
emergency could have been handled as well as, or better, than the
handling at ORD I described.

My emergency was before the PATCO strike, for whatever that may be worth.

Another situation on my airline. A friend of mine had two engines
failed enroute in a 727. This is a very rare event, but it is a trained
maneuver. Once the grear is down and final landing flaps (flaps 5 in
this case) are selected there is no going around. The emergency started
about 80 miles out from LAX inbound. Everything was goind good until
they were handed off to the tower and they heard the tower still using
the runway they were assigned. The captain told them, loud and clear,
that the aircraft was incapable of going around and if they didn't stop
using the runway right now, they were landing along side of whatever
traffic they might be foolish enough to have on the runway.

That got it cleared up.

The AAL guy absolutely should have done about the same thing.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus hours,
> FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
> airports, sometimes on the same day. Have declared
> emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
> facilities.
>

Did anybody declare an emergency and request an opposite direction arrival
during any of your visits?


>
> Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD, and
> other similar. I know that once you have a steady stream of
> arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped. FAR priority does
> not alter the laws of space, time or physics.
>

But you've said, several times now I think, that the POTUS gets that
treatment. How is it that the laws of space, time, and physics can be
altered for him but for an emergency?

Oh, by the way, the operational priority hierarchy in FAAO 7110.65 puts
presidential aircraft fourth, after aircraft in distress, LIFEGUARD flights,
and SAR.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.

That is the point; the traffic for his requested runway should be moved
out of the way, taking whatever action is necessary to do that.

Let's say the traffic was exactly as it was that day and someone landing
on runway 17 blows a tire. Are they going to continue landing the
already-establish line of traffic for that runway on top of the disabled
aircraft?

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus hours,
> FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
> airports, sometimes on the same day. Have declared
> emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
> facilities.
> Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD, and
> other similar. I know that once you have a steady stream of
> arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped. FAR priority does
> not alter the laws of space, time or physics.
>
>
>
>
Okay, I have 19,000 hours, major Part 121, ALPA safety rep, and you just
do not get it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
>>turn out "wishy-washy?"
>>
>
>
> The declaration was not wishy-washy.
>
>
Agreed. But, he needed to continue to be agressive given the
circumstances, and he did not.

From a pilot's seat for many years, at such little airports
as DFW, ATL, DEN,STL, ORD, etc.

Many hours in the cab and TRACON as a visitor, watching
airports "turn around."

Being given ATC priority during my emergencies and seeing
other pilots get priority handling.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.
| >
|
| What do you base that on? What is your ATC experience?
|
|

And if the time required to move that traffic is longer than
the time required for the aircraft in distress to fly
downwind and land, which is the "best" solution?


It is not a question of what the FAR allows, but which was
the quicker solution? If ATC asked a 707 to fly 100 knots
for spacing behind a CE172 with an emergency, does that
change the laws of flight?
None of us has seen the radar tapes, we don't know the exact
location of number of aircraft the would have had to be
moved or where they would be moved to, but there would have
been dozens at DFW. If each aircraft needed 30 seconds to
get a clearance and two or three minutes to actually clear
the area, and the AA plane was only 5 minutes north, the AA
plane would have had to hold, S-turn or do something to
delay himself before the runway was clear.

The word to keep in mind is PRACTICABLE. The PIC may
deviate from any clearance in an emergency, but everybody
else still has to follow the rules.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.
|
| That is the point; the traffic for his requested runway
should be moved
| out of the way, taking whatever action is necessary to do
that.
|
| Let's say the traffic was exactly as it was that day and
someone landing
| on runway 17 blows a tire. Are they going to continue
landing the
| already-establish line of traffic for that runway on top
of the disabled
| aircraft?

Which is why POTUS always has a TFR, he's number 4 but is
the only traffic in his area, which makes him number one.

No emergency turn arounds, but I did see that it takes some
time. Just how long it would take would depend on the
location and number of aircraft. The FAA could run this in
their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW, but for
now, I am ...
happy it all worked out;
enjoying the discussion;
waiting for a DFW controller to join in.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus
hours,
| > FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
| > airports, sometimes on the same day. Have declared
| > emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
| > facilities.
| >
|
| Did anybody declare an emergency and request an opposite
direction arrival
| during any of your visits?
|
|
| >
| > Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD,
and
| > other similar. I know that once you have a steady
stream of
| > arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped. FAR priority
does
| > not alter the laws of space, time or physics.
| >
|
| But you've said, several times now I think, that the POTUS
gets that
| treatment. How is it that the laws of space, time, and
physics can be
| altered for him but for an emergency?
|
| Oh, by the way, the operational priority hierarchy in FAAO
7110.65 puts
| presidential aircraft fourth, after aircraft in distress,
LIFEGUARD flights,
| and SAR.
|
|

If you were the pilot with the low fuel and had declared an
emergency, would you want a downwind straight in or an
expedited downwind and base/final if both took the same
time? What if the straight in takes 30 seconds longer while
traffic clear your flight path?

Have all pilots turned blonde?



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus
hours,
| > FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
| > airports, sometimes on the same day. Have declared
| > emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
| > facilities.
| > Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD,
and
| > other similar. I know that once you have a steady
stream of
| > arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped. FAR priority
does
| > not alter the laws of space, time or physics.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| Okay, I have 19,000 hours, major Part 121, ALPA safety
rep, and you just
| do not get it.

Maybe, how much time was available? If the AA plane was in
DFW approach airspace, it was maybe 5-6 minutes out, how
long would clearing all the other traffic take?

On a busy day at Wichita, there might be three other
aircraft, at DFW, it would be dozens. How long does it
take?
BTHOOM, but it does take some measurable time.
ATC has limitations, they can be UNABLE just as pilots can
be unable. If the AA plane was over Ardmore, then DFW had
plenty of time, if the AA plane was close-in, there would
not be time to clear the space.

A PIC request/demand does not alter time.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Only after the other traffic was out of the way. IF
[the
| > unknown none of us know] the plane was a 5 minute out
| > straight in to 17 and it would take 11 minutes to clear
all
| > the other airplanes out of the way, a hold would be
| > required.
| >
| > What was the traffic count and where was each airplane,
| > which way do you turn them so they don't collide with
the
| > airplane in distress or each other, what traffic was at
the
| > other airports on the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and how
would it
| > be effected?
| >
| > So far, only the President of the United States gets
| > airspace that clear, all the time.
| >
|
| The other traffic would be out of the way by the time the
plane arrived..
|
|

It does seem that you had "time" for you and ATC to manage.
I don't know just where the TUL-DFW emergency began, do you.
It was in the DFW area as far as I recall from the other
posts, ATC offered other airports and the pilot declined
[which raises the question in my mind of just how serious
the pilot was treating his emergency] and ATC did get him
safely on the ground.

I am an absolutist on the subject of PIC rights, as I am
about gun-rights, and property rights. But I am also aware
that even Doctor Welby [or House] can't save everybody.
The reason for the TFR may have been worries about terrorism
and threats to the President, but 30 NM does give time for
ATC emergencies too.

My point is that pilot's emergency authority allows
deviations as needed [and is a get out of jail free] but
some request can be done within the available time and some
can't. I have never seen or heard an accurate or
knowledgeable report on aviation, guns, or other technical
topics on the television. Just the other day on the History
Channel, the Gunny said that the B36 used turboprop engines.

Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or what
he needs?



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Only after the other traffic was out of the way. IF
[the
| > unknown none of us know] the plane was a 5 minute out
| > straight in to 17 and it would take 11 minutes to clear
all
| > the other airplanes out of the way, a hold would be
| > required.
| >
|
| They don't have to have a sterile environment like they do
for Air Force
| One. As you say, no aircraft can be within 30 miles of
the airport when
| Air Force One is approaching or departing.
|
| This is entirely different.
|
| When I was flying the line I had only one genuine
emergency and it was
| on a clear day at ORD. We had just been shipped over to
approach from
| center. We told approach we needed 14R. They already
knew the nature
| of our emergency, having been briefed by the center. Once
they were
| directly aware of our need for 14R they gave us a new
frequency.
|
| Turns out we were the only flight on that frequency. We
were about 25
| miles out and pointed directly to 14R. We never heard
about how they
| cleared the way for us (we were too busy to care) but it
was like we
| owned the airport.
|
| As we got fairly close in we could see aircraft using 14L,
but 14R was
| our's.
|
| DFW has a better layout than ORD and the proper handling
of a genuine
| emergency could have been handled as well as, or better,
than the
| handling at ORD I described.
|
| My emergency was before the PATCO strike, for whatever
that may be worth.
|
| Another situation on my airline. A friend of mine had two
engines
| failed enroute in a 727. This is a very rare event, but
it is a trained
| maneuver. Once the grear is down and final landing flaps
(flaps 5 in
| this case) are selected there is no going around. The
emergency started
| about 80 miles out from LAX inbound. Everything was goind
good until
| they were handed off to the tower and they heard the tower
still using
| the runway they were assigned. The captain told them,
loud and clear,
| that the aircraft was incapable of going around and if
they didn't stop
| using the runway right now, they were landing along side
of whatever
| traffic they might be foolish enough to have on the
runway.
|
| That got it cleared up.
|
| The AAL guy absolutely should have done about the same
thing.

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or what
> he needs?

What he states he needs. I don't want anyone on the ground deciding
that for me, except for maintenance engineering when there is time.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> If you were the pilot with the low fuel and had declared an
> emergency, would you want a downwind straight in or an
> expedited downwind and base/final if both took the same
> time? What if the straight in takes 30 seconds longer while
> traffic clear your flight path?
>
> Have all pilots turned blonde?

I want the runway I have decided is best for me. If I could have landed
30 seconds sooner on some other runway let them show me that at the hearing.

I would like to think I would have had it right.

I'm glad you're pilot's certificate made you omnipotent, I
always suggested alternate course of action and asked "why?"

I read on another post that the plane was 81 miles out, if
so, then ATC had the time. But what are the facts, where
was the plane, when was an emergency declared, when was the
runway requested?
I'm am not defending ATC or the pilot, the facts should
speak. But most of what I've seen has been conjecture based
on TV reports that have been edited for impact and TV
commercial space.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| >
| > Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or
what
| > he needs?
|
| What he states he needs. I don't want anyone on the
ground deciding
| that for me, except for maintenance engineering when there
is time.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> From a pilot's seat for many years, at such little airports
> as DFW, ATL, DEN,STL, ORD, etc.
>
> Many hours in the cab and TRACON as a visitor, watching
> airports "turn around."
>
> Being given ATC priority during my emergencies and seeing
> other pilots get priority handling.
>

So no ATC experience, just as I thought. What was the purpose of the
airport's "turn around" that you watched?

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> And if the time required to move that traffic is longer than
> the time required for the aircraft in distress to fly
> downwind and land, which is the "best" solution?
>

Irrelevant. The time required to move that traffic was less than the time
required for the aircraft in distress to fly downwind and land.

Are you related to Norm Melick?

During my one in-air emergency (partial engine failure in a 172), I did
squawk 7700 as I called a radar facility, and it helped. The controller
then gave me a squawk code. There wasn't going to be any handoff, and I
think changing codes stopped alarms at his position and many others.

David

Mitty wrote:
> On 2/23/2007 6:21 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
>
>> If you've already told the controller you have an emergency, squawking
>> 7700 doesn't add anything to the situation. The 7700 stuff is for
>> when you're out of radio contact.
>
> Au contraire. With a 7700 squawk then if the emergency situation wasn't
> mentioned in the handoff (which it possibly wasn't) then the next
> controller would still have known something was seriously wrong.
>
> (Now possibly if AA had squawked 7700 he would have been asked to switch
> off that code at some point, but we don't even know from the video
> whether he tried it.)

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> No emergency turn arounds, but I did see that it takes some
> time. Just how long it would take would depend on the
> location and number of aircraft.
>

Did you ask any questions during your visits? Did you understand anything
you heard or observed? Why did you assume it would be necessary to "turn
the airport around" to deal with the emergency under discussion?

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you were the pilot with the low fuel and had declared an
> emergency, would you want a downwind straight in or an
> expedited downwind and base/final if both took the same
> time? What if the straight in takes 30 seconds longer while
> traffic clear your flight path?
>

The straight-in is always quicker.


>
> Have all pilots turned blonde?
>

You just don't get it. This is not a matter of opinion. You're simply
incorrect.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maybe, how much time was available? If the AA plane was in
> DFW approach airspace, it was maybe 5-6 minutes out, how
> long would clearing all the other traffic take?
>

Why didn't you listen to the tape?

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I'm glad you're pilot's certificate made you omnipotent, I
> always suggested alternate course of action and asked "why?"

Being sarcastic doesn't help your case. Not understanding what PIC
means in an emergency doesn't help your case, either.
>
> I read on another post that the plane was 81 miles out, if
> so, then ATC had the time. But what are the facts, where
> was the plane, when was an emergency declared, when was the
> runway requested?

When all else fails, listen to the tape.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Irrelevant. The time required to move that traffic was less than the time
> required for the aircraft in distress to fly downwind and land.
>
> Are you related to Norm Melick?

LOL

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know just where the TUL-DFW emergency began, do you.
>

That information was on the tape, why didn't you listen to it?

>
> Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or what
> he needs?
>

Is it better for ATC to decide what the pilot needs or better that the pilot
make that decision?

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Maybe, how much time was available? If the AA plane was in
> DFW approach airspace, it was maybe 5-6 minutes out, how
> long would clearing all the other traffic take?

The time required to read a vector to each aircraft and receive the readback.
"(callsign), turn to heading xxx" and "Turn to heading xxx, (callsign)"
multiplied by the number of aircraft. If each instruction and readback
require a total of eight seconds (and I'm being generous), and there are
twenty aircraft to be moved, that's 160 seconds, or just under three minutes.
In reality, of course, they won't all have to be moved, and it isn't even
likely that there would be two dozen in close proximity. There are other
factors that come into play, most of them reducing, not increasing the time
required to move other traffic.

> On a busy day at Wichita, there might be three other
> aircraft, at DFW, it would be dozens. How long does it
> take?

See above. It doesn't take very long.

> BTHOOM, but it does take some measurable time.

Yes, measurable time, but not significant time.

> ATC has limitations, they can be UNABLE just as pilots can
> be unable.

They are never unable to divert traffic. If they were, then many aircraft
would crash each time a thunderstorm rolled over the airport or an aircraft
was slow in leaving the runway.

> If the AA plane was over Ardmore, then DFW had
> plenty of time, if the AA plane was close-in, there would
> not be time to clear the space.

There's always time to clear the space. Most of it is clear already. The
only real obstacle is an aircraft on the runway, and that can be cleared in a
few seconds.

You seem very reluctant to accept the reality of unconditional priority for
aircraft with emergencies, and very eager to postulate highly fanciful
scenarios in which it would somehow be difficult to make way for an aircraft
with an emergency to land on the runway of the pilot's choice.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or what
> he needs?

What he wants. ATC doesn't know what he needs.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> Is it better for ATC to give the pilot what he wants or what
> he needs?

Somewhere earlier in this thread someone said "ATC had to provide for
AAL's possible go-around." (perhaps that was you?)

If AAL's had a low fuel state sufficent to have declared his emergency
he did not have the option to go around. If the gear or flaps did not
come down, he was committed to land on the first try, no matter what.

If he had fuel for a go-around it was a bogus emergency.

Have you read the 1993 Avianca crash report at JFK?

Jim Macklin wrote:
> From a pilot's seat for many years, at such little airports
> as DFW, ATL, DEN,STL, ORD, etc.
>
> Many hours in the cab and TRACON as a visitor, watching
> airports "turn around."

It shouldn't be necessary for the airport to turn around in the case in
question. The traffic just has to be moved out of the way of the
emergency airplane.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I'm glad you're pilot's certificate made you omnipotent ...

That's what the term "pilot in command" is meant to convey. The PIC is
omnipotent aboard his aircraft. His decision on how the aircraft is to be
flown is final.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Not unless you ignore all the other traffic.

s/ignore/divert/

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> From a pilot's seat for many years, at such little airports
> as DFW, ATL, DEN,STL, ORD, etc.

If being a pilot makes one qualified to speak as a controller, does simulating
flight make one qualified to talk about flight in real life?

> Many hours in the cab and TRACON as a visitor, watching
> airports "turn around."

I've watched doctors working. Can I be a doctor now?

> Being given ATC priority during my emergencies and seeing
> other pilots get priority handling.

Doctors have occasionally treated my illnesses. Can I be a doctor now?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> And if the time required to move that traffic is longer than
> the time required for the aircraft in distress to fly
> downwind and land, which is the "best" solution?

The PIC chooses a solution. It's not a committee decision.

> It is not a question of what the FAR allows, but which was
> the quicker solution?

No. It's a question of which solution the PIC selects. That solution is the
one that will be carried out.

> If ATC asked a 707 to fly 100 knots
> for spacing behind a CE172 with an emergency, does that
> change the laws of flight?

No, but ATC knows better than that. Indeed, ATC would never put the aircraft
in a position that might require this.

> If each aircraft needed 30 seconds to
> get a clearance and two or three minutes to actually clear
> the area ...

That is never the case. Instructions can be given and read back in a few
seconds, and aircraft can turn or change altitude in a few more seconds.

> The word to keep in mind is PRACTICABLE.

If that's the word you wish to keep in mind, then it might be wise to avoid
imagining farfetched scenarios that never exist in reality. Aircraft are not
oil tankers, and they can move very quickly if needed. And very often no
movement is needed.

> The PIC may deviate from any clearance in an emergency ...

The PIC doesn't need a clearance in an emergency.

> ... but everybody else still has to follow the rules.

Other aircraft don't need clearances, they only need instructions. A
clearance is something an aircraft requests and receives; instructions are
something that ATC gives spontaneously. Aircraft in the vicinity of a flight
with an emergency are not suddenly going to start asking for clearances.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Then tell me. In case you don't know... 8,000 plus hours,
> FAR 135, several type ratings, grass strips and big
> airports, sometimes on the same day.

I don't see any controller time there.

Remember this the next time you criticize people who fly simulators. Have you
ever simulated ATC?

> Have declared emergency on several occasions. Have visited ATC
> facilities. Have flown into, usually single-pilot, ATL, DFW, ORD, and
> other similar.

I still don't see any controller time there.

> I know that once you have a steady stream of
> arrivals, they can't be suddenly stopped.

They can easily be diverted or held. But sometimes neither is necessary. If
someone is running out of fuel, for example, you need only put him number one
for his runway; it isn't necessary to move anyone else except to put him in
front. Once he lands, he can roll out of the way like anyone else. If for
some reason he cannot do that, following aircraft can still go around.

> FAR priority does not alter the laws of space, time or physics.

Those laws are not an obstacle in real life, as a general rule.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> The FAA could run this in
> their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW ...

I thought simulators didn't count.

How much time did you spend in their simulator trying this out?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> If you were the pilot with the low fuel and had declared an
> emergency, would you want a downwind straight in or an
> expedited downwind and base/final if both took the same
> time?

Not enough information given here, but as a general rule, I would want
whatever is simple and will put me on the ground safely the soonest.

> What if the straight in takes 30 seconds longer while
> traffic clear your flight path?

It won't take any longer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light for every action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable, and will get all possible assistance.

The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've wasted too much time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating rumors and TV gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either.
2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement, FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling, fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-9.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.

2-1-2. DUTY PRIORITY

a. Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as required in this order. Good judgment shall be used in prioritizing all other provisions of this order based on the requirements of the situation at hand.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.

NOTE-
Because there are many variables involved, it is virtually impossible to develop a standard list of duty priorities that would apply uniformly to every conceivable situation. Each set of circumstances must be evaluated on its own merit, and when more than one action is required, controllers shall exercise their best judgment based on the facts and circumstances known to them. That action which is most critical from a safety standpoint is performed first.

b. Provide additional services to the extent possible, contingent only upon higher priority duties and other factors including limitations of radar, volume of traffic, frequency congestion, and workload.

2-1-3. PROCEDURAL PREFERENCE

a. Use automation procedures in preference to nonautomation procedures when workload, communications, and equipment capabilities permit.

b. Use radar separation in preference to nonradar separation when it will be to an operational advantage and workload, communications, and equipment permit.

c. Use nonradar separation in preference to radar separation when the situation dictates that an operational advantage will be gained.

NOTE-
One situation may be where vertical separation would preclude excessive vectoring.

2-1-4. OPERATIONAL PRIORITY

Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a "first come, first served" basis as circumstances permit, except the following:

NOTE-
It is solely the pilot's prerogative to cancel an IFR flight plan. However, a pilot's retention of an IFR flight plan does not afford priority over VFR aircraft. For example, this does not preclude the requirement for the pilot of an arriving IFR aircraft to adjust his/her flight path, as necessary, to enter a traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft.

a. An aircraft in distress has the right of way over all other air traffic.

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.113(c).

b. Provide priority to civilian air ambulance flights "LIFEGUARD." Air carrier/taxi usage of the "LIFEGUARD" call sign, indicates that operational priority is requested. When verbally requested, provide priority to military air evacuation flights (AIR EVAC, MED EVAC) and scheduled air carrier/air taxi flights. Assist the pilots of air ambulance/evacuation aircraft to avoid areas of significant weather and turbulent conditions. When requested by a pilot, provide notifications to expedite ground handling of patients, vital organs, or urgently needed medical materials.

NOTE-
It is recognized that heavy traffic flow may affect the controller's ability to provide priority handling. However, without compromising safety, good judgment shall be used in each situation to facilitate the most expeditious movement of a lifeguard aircraft.

c. Provide maximum assistance to SAR aircraft performing a SAR mission.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Providing Assistance, Para 10-1-3.

d. Expedite the movement of presidential aircraft and entourage and any rescue support aircraft as well as related control messages when traffic conditions and communications facilities permit.

NOTE-
As used herein the terms presidential aircraft and entourage include aircraft and entourage of the President, Vice President, or other public figures when designated by the White House.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Aircraft Identification, Para 2-4-20.
FAAO 7110.65, Departure Clearances, Para 4-3-2.
FAAO 7210.3, Advance Coordination, Para 5-1-1.

e. Provide special handling, as required to expedite Flight Check aircraft.

NOTE-
It is recognized that unexpected wind conditions, weather, or heavy traffic flows may affect controller's ability to provide priority or special handling at the specific time requested.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Flight Check Aircraft, Para 9-1-3.

f. Expedite movement of NIGHT WATCH aircraft when NAOC (pronounced NA-YOCK) is indicated in the remarks section of the flight plan or in air/ground communications.

NOTE-
The term "NAOC" will not be a part of the call sign but may be used when the aircraft is airborne to indicate a request for special handling.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7610.4, Applications, Para 12-1-1.

g. Provide expeditious handling for any civil or military aircraft using the code name "FLYNET."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, FLYNET, Para 9-2-6.
FAAO 7610.4, "FLYNET" Flights, Nuclear Emergency Teams,
Para 12-4-1.

h. Provide expeditious handling of aircraft using the code name "Garden Plot" only when CARF notifies you that such priority is authorized. Refer any questions regarding flight procedures to CARF for resolution.

NOTE-
Garden Plot flights require priority movement and are coordinated by the military with CARF. State authority will contact the Regional Administrator to arrange for priority of National Guard troop movements within a particular state.

i. Provide special handling for USAF aircraft engaged in aerial sampling missions using the code name "SAMP."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, SAMP, Para 9-2-16.
FAAO 7210.3, Atmosphere Sampling For Nuclear Contamination,
Para 5-3-4.
FAAO 7610.4, Atmospheric Sampling For Nuclear Contamination,
Para 12-4-3.

j. Provide maximum assistance to expedite the movement of interceptor aircraft on active air defense missions until the unknown aircraft is identified.

k. Expedite movement of Special Air Mission aircraft when SCOOT is indicated in the remarks section of the flight plan or in air/ground communications.

NOTE-
The term "SCOOT" will not be part of the call sign but may be used when the aircraft is airborne to indicate a request for special handling.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Law Enforcement Operations by Civil and Military Organizations, Para 9-2-11.
FAAO 7610.4, Applications, Para 12-7-1.

l. When requested, provide priority handling to TEAL and NOAA mission aircraft.

NOTE-
Priority handling may be requested by the pilot, or via telephone from CARCAH or the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (53WRS) operations center personnel, or in the remarks section of the flight plan.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Weather Reconnaissance Flights, Para 9-2-18.

m. IFR aircraft shall have priority over SVFR aircraft.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Chapter 7, Section 5, Special VFR (SVFR).

n. Providing priority and special handling to expedite the movement of OPEN SKIES observation and demonstration flights.

NOTE-
An OPEN SKIES aircraft has priority over all "regular" air traffic. "Regular" is defined as all aircraft traffic other than:
1. Emergencies.
2. Aircraft directly involved in presidential movement.
3. Forces or activities in actual combat.
4. Lifeguard, MED EVAC, AIR EVAC and active SAR missions.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65 OPEN SKIES Treaty Aircraft, Para 9-2-21.
FAAO 7210.3, OPEN SKIES Treaty Aircraft, Para 5-3-7.
Treaty on OPEN SKIES, Treaty Document, 102-37.

o. Aircraft operating under the North American Route Program (NRP) and in airspace identified in the High Altitude Redesign (HAR) program, are not subject to route limiting restrictions (e.g., published preferred IFR routes, letter of agreement requirements, standard operating procedures).

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, En Route Data Entries, Para 2-3-2.
FAAO 7110.65, North American Route Program (NRP) Information, Para 2-2-15.
FAAO 7110.65, Route or Altitude Amendments, Para 4-2-5.
FAAO 7210.3, Chapter 17, Section 14, North American Route Program.

p. If able, provide priority handling to diverted flights. Priority handling may be requested via use of "DVRSN" in the remarks section of the flight plan or by the flight being placed on the Diversion Recovery Tool (DRT).

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Diversion Recovery, Para 17-4-5.

2-1-5. EXPEDITIOUS COMPLIANCE

a. Use the word "immediately" only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation.

b. Use the word "expedite" only when prompt compliance is required to avoid the development of an imminent situation. If an "expedite" climb or descent clearance is issued by ATC, and subsequently the altitude to maintain is changed or restated without an expedite instruction, the expedite instruction is canceled.

c. In either case, if time permits, include the reason for this action.

2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT

Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is in a position/altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not assume that because someone else has responsibility for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been observed and the safety alert issued; inform the appropriate controller.

NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see para 2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the radar system, and the available lead time to react are factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the controller to observe and recognize such situations. While a controller cannot see immediately the development of every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the controller must remain vigilant for such situations and issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.

2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts, Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR scope, or pilot reports.

3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.

a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is at an altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain/obstructions. Issue the alert as follows:

PHRASEOLOGY-
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),

CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.

THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR AREA IS (altitude),

or if an aircraft is past the final approach fix (nonprecision approach),

or the outer marker,

or the fix used in lieu of the outer marker (precision approach),

and, if known, issue

THE (as appropriate) MDA/DH IS (altitude).

b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware of another aircraft at an altitude which you believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible, offer the pilot an alternate course of action.

c. When an alternate course of action is given, end the transmission with the word "immediately."

PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),

and/or

CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate) IMMEDIATELY.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Conflict Alert (CA) and Mode C Intruder (MCI) Alert, Para 5-14-1.
FAAO 7110.65, En Route Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (E-MSAW), Para 5-14-2.
FAAO 7110.65, CA/MCI, Para 5-15-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Altitude Filters, Para 5-2-23.

2-1-7. INFLIGHT EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS

a. When a pilot reports an inflight equipment malfunction, determine the nature and extent of any special handling desired.

NOTE-
Inflight equipment malfunctions include partial or complete failure of equipment, which may affect either safety, separation standards, and/or the ability of the flight to proceed under IFR, or in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace, in the ATC system. Controllers may expect reports from pilots regarding VOR, TACAN, ADF, GPS, RVSM capability, or low frequency navigation receivers, impairment of air-ground communications capability, or other equipment deemed appropriate by the pilot (e.g., airborne weather radar). Pilots should communicate the nature and extent of any assistance desired from ATC.

b. Provide the maximum assistance possible consistent with equipment, workload, and any special handling requested.

c. Relay to other controllers or facilities who will subsequently handle the aircraft, all pertinent details concerning the aircraft and any special handling required or being provided.

2-1-8. MINIMUM FUEL

If an aircraft declares a state of "minimum fuel," inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft en route.

NOTE-
Use of the term "minimum fuel" indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.






"Sam Spade" > wrote in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I'm glad you're pilot's certificate made you omnipotent, I
| > always suggested alternate course of action and asked "why?"
|
| Being sarcastic doesn't help your case. Not understanding what PIC
| means in an emergency doesn't help your case, either.
| >
| > I read on another post that the plane was 81 miles out, if
| > so, then ATC had the time. But what are the facts, where
| > was the plane, when was an emergency declared, when was the
| > runway requested?
|
| When all else fails, listen to the tape.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...

2-1-4. OPERATIONAL PRIORITY

Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a "first come,
first served" basis as circumstances permit, except the following:


a. An aircraft in distress has the right of way over all other air
traffic.

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.113(c).

Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a
collision between aircraft operating in the system and to
organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to
its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to
provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many
factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher
priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and
detect those situations that fall in this category. It is
recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases
in which the provision of services is precluded by the above
factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
controllers shall provide additional service procedures to
the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not
optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
required when the work situation permits. Provide air
traffic control service in accordance with the procedures
and minima in this order except when:



No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way
and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request,
demand or wish can, will or should be granted.

We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
|
| 2-1-4. OPERATIONAL PRIORITY
|
| Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a
"first come,
| first served" basis as circumstances permit, except the
following:
|
|
| a. An aircraft in distress has the right of way over
all other air
| traffic.
|
| REFERENCE-
| 14 CFR Section 91.113(c).
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
> ATC shall grant any pilot request ...

That's because it is no longer necessary to have permission from ATC once an
emergency is declared. The pilot tells ATC his intentions. ATC does not
grant or withhold any authorizations, because it cannot.

> We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.

Danger increases, however, when there are pilots about who don't understand
their relationship to ATC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
> 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
>
> The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a
> collision between aircraft operating in the system and to
> organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to
> its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to
> provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
> ability to provide additional services is limited by many
> factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
> congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher
> priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and
> detect those situations that fall in this category. It is
> recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases
> in which the provision of services is precluded by the above
> factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
> controllers shall provide additional service procedures to
> the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
> circumstances. The provision of additional services is not
> optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
> required when the work situation permits. Provide air
> traffic control service in accordance with the procedures
> and minima in this order except when:
>

Right of way is a statutory right granted an airplane to proceed ahead of
another. I see that you deleted subparagraph c. from your copy and paste of
FAAO 7110.65 paragraph 2-1-1. You have no honor.


>
> No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
> ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
> limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way
> and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request,
> demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
>

What does it mean to you?


>
> We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
>

Did ATC do the best they could in this case?

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.

Not all the time.

These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any interpretation
whatsoever:

"An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic."


Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the local FAA
expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the flight?

The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL came very, very
close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion. That event
shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well should have.

Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration of an emergency
is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC or anyone else
until after the flight is terminated. After that, the conduct of the
PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some cases, sanctions.

But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is supposed to be given
the priority he requests. If that does not work then the PIC should, if
necessary, rephrase it as a demand.

There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the PIC would not
be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light for every
> action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable, and will get all
> possible assistance.
>
> The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've wasted too much
> time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating rumors and TV
> gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either.

Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that is mostly not
relevant to the discussion?

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
> 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
>
> The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a
> collision between aircraft operating in the system and to
> organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to
> its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to
> provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
> ability to provide additional services is limited by many
> factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
> congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher
> priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and
> detect those situations that fall in this category. It is
> recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases
> in which the provision of services is precluded by the above
> factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
> controllers shall provide additional service procedures to
> the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
> circumstances. The provision of additional services is not
> optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
> required when the work situation permits. Provide air
> traffic control service in accordance with the procedures
> and minima in this order except when:
>
>
>
> No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
> ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
> limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way
> and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request,
> demand or wish can, will or should be granted.

Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional service" as
defined here. This is talking about optional services like VFR
advisories, not dealing with an emergency.

Matt

I copied the whole thing previously. Yes, I have honor and
common sense.
I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but
91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated
for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the
emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any
action not needed.
If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the
limitations exception, not as a total argument.
see a dictionary for carte blanche...

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
| > 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
| >
| > The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent
a
| > collision between aircraft operating in the system and
to
| > organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition
to
| > its primary function, the ATC system has the capability
to
| > provide (with certain limitations) additional services.
The
| > ability to provide additional services is limited by
many
| > factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
| > congestion, quality of radar, controller workload,
higher
| > priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and
| > detect those situations that fall in this category. It
is
| > recognized that these services cannot be provided in
cases
| > in which the provision of services is precluded by the
above
| > factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
| > controllers shall provide additional service procedures
to
| > the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
| > circumstances. The provision of additional services is
not
| > optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
| > required when the work situation permits. Provide air
| > traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures
| > and minima in this order except when:
| >
|
| Right of way is a statutory right granted an airplane to
proceed ahead of
| another. I see that you deleted subparagraph c. from your
copy and paste of
| FAAO 7110.65 paragraph 2-1-1. You have no honor.
|
|
| >
| > No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY
means
| > ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
| > limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of
way
| > and priority handling does not mean that every PIC
request,
| > demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
| >
|
| What does it mean to you?
|
|
| >
| > We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
| >
|
| Did ATC do the best they could in this case?
|
|

It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.

I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| >
| > We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
|
| Not all the time.
|
| These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any
interpretation
| whatsoever:
|
| "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic."
|
|
| Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the
local FAA
| expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the
flight?
|
| The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL
came very, very
| close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion.
That event
| shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well
should have.
|
| Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration
of an emergency
| is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC
or anyone else
| until after the flight is terminated. After that, the
conduct of the
| PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some
cases, sanctions.
|
| But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is
supposed to be given
| the priority he requests. If that does not work then the
PIC should, if
| necessary, rephrase it as a demand.
|
| There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the
PIC would not
| be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

yes
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light
for every
| > action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable,
and will get all
| > possible assistance.
| >
| > The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've
wasted too much
| > time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating
rumors and TV
| > gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either.
|
| Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that
is mostly not
| relevant to the discussion?
|
| Matt

The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
necessary.

Giving priority handling does not mean or require doing
everything the pilots asks. It does mean that ATC won't
vector you the normal 20 mile base leg and they will fit you
in ASAP. There are priorities...

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
| > 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
| >
| > The primary purpose of the ATC system is to
prevent a
| > collision between aircraft operating in the system and
to
| > organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition
to
| > its primary function, the ATC system has the capability
to
| > provide (with certain limitations) additional services.
The
| > ability to provide additional services is limited by
many
| > factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
| > congestion, quality of radar, controller workload,
higher
| > priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and
| > detect those situations that fall in this category. It
is
| > recognized that these services cannot be provided in
cases
| > in which the provision of services is precluded by the
above
| > factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
| > controllers shall provide additional service procedures
to
| > the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
| > circumstances. The provision of additional services is
not
| > optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
| > required when the work situation permits. Provide air
| > traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures
| > and minima in this order except when:
| >
| >
| >
| > No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY
means
| > ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
| > limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of
way
| > and priority handling does not mean that every PIC
request,
| > demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
|
| Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional
service" as
| defined here. This is talking about optional services
like VFR
| advisories, not dealing with an emergency.
|
| Matt

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I copied the whole thing previously.
>

Why didn't you read it?


>
> Yes, I have honor and common sense.
>

You have neither.


>
> I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but
> 91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated
> for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the
> emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any
> action not needed.
> If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the
> limitations exception, not as a total argument.
> see a dictionary for carte blanche...
>

The request we're discussing could have been granted, and should have.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
> are absolutely clear.
> Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
> write the laws?
>

Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113 language I previously
cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room in that
language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out of court.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
> every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
> shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
> [except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
> It is not carte blanche.
>
>
> Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
> what is possible.
>

The request was possible but still refused.


>
> I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
> maybe it will improve service on both sides.
>
> All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
> are absolutely clear.
>

The words in question are absolutely clear.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
> ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
> does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
> necessary.
>

ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:17:59 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104
>>
>>
>> Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
>
>Not exactly.

Aw, come on now. Just look at all the thoughtful people involved.

You have an ATP who is willing to fly around the airport to make
things easier on the controller even though he may be about to run out
of fuel with 100 plus passenger on board. You have approach calling
the tower to inform them the pilot would like 17, but doesn't want to
worry them with the though of a low fuel "situation" and a tower
controller who guides the "troubled" plane around the airport to keep
them out of the way of regular traffic.

However: You would think the ATP would at least have a bit of self
preservation in mind.

One of our local pilots in a 172 was coming back from down south on an
IFR flight plan when the engine swallowed a slug of ice. She was
shaking badly and didn't appear to be getting better., He declared an
emergency and ATC told every one else "shoo". Airliners and all
cleared out to make way for him. He landed without incident and made
it to the FBO. After setting for a while it ran fine. The verdict was
carb ice and all concerned told him he did the right thing. The tower
guys told him "good job", kinda like when you put it where they want
at Oshkosh<:-))

As others have said, you, not the tower chief or any one else owns
that airport after having said those magic words declaring an
emergency.

If it's me "up there" and something goes wrong, I'm not too proud to
holler for help. We'll sort out the paper work later if there is any.
In the case of the 172 above, he didn't have to fill out anything.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > All words are subject to interpretation and very few
words
| > are absolutely clear.
| > Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do
lawyer
| > write the laws?
| >
|
| Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113
language I previously
| cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room
in that
| language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out
of court.

That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
controller think he could do.

If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
edited report.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > The point is that declaring an emergency does not
require
| > ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
| > does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
| > necessary.
| >
|
| ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.
|
|

> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
> a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be infringed."
>
> That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
> passed and people continue to argue about what it means.

Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause really muddies up
the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be clear. But
it wasn't.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
> or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
> controller think he could do.
>
> If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
> either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
> edited report.
>

You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing your argument on?

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
> a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be infringed."
>
> That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
> passed and people continue to argue about what it means.*

The Constitution also prohibits involuntary servitude except as punishment for
a crime, but that has never stopped military conscription.

Essentially the Constitution means whatever the political winds of the day
want it to mean, which is why it survives.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of
| > a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms
| > shall not be infringed."
| >
| > That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws
are
| > passed and people continue to argue about what it means.
|
| Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause
really muddies up
| the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of
the people to
| keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be
clear. But
| it wasn't.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

50 years of reading and watch news reports.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides
now,
| > or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
| > controller think he could do.
| >
| > If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't
condemn
| > either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
| > edited report.
| >
|
| You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing
your argument on?
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
> clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
> were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
> 1789. That really muddies up the water.
>
> Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
> Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
> at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
> conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
> considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
> the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
> Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
>

Fuzzy is fuzzy and that is fuzzy. Plus, you have to wade through all
the background material in an attempt to determine "legislative intent."
It will forever be challenged by the meaning of militia.

Not so with the 91.113 clause previously cited in this thread.

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> I thought simulators didn't count.

Why do you think that?

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration of an emergency
> is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC or anyone else
> until after the flight is terminated. After that, the conduct of the PIC
> is fairly open to critique and review and, in some cases, sanctions.
>
> But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is supposed to be given
> the priority he requests. If that does not work then the PIC should, if
> necessary, rephrase it as a demand.
>
> There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the PIC would not be
> subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only one
runway?

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make the
single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?

Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like the
controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze" reports
excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever, contain all
the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that I'm getting the
whole complete story :-/

KP wrote:


>
>
> Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
> -What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only one
> runway?
>
Never happened in my world.

> -What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make the
> single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?

First come, first served.

>
> Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.
>
> As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like the
> controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze" reports
> excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever, contain all
> the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that I'm getting the
> whole complete story :-/
>
>
The tape recording and the fact AAL wrote to the FAA is good enough for me.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> KP wrote:
>>
>> Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
>> -What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
>> one runway?
>>
> Never happened in my world.

And therefore it never has or will? It has happened and when it did someone
other than one of several "pilots in command" of the several emergency
aircraft made the decision on who's first and who got what. When it happens
again, and it will, the decisions will again be made by someone else.
Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that someone is ATC.

>> -What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
>> the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can
>> wait?
>
> First come, first served.

So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.

>> Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.
>
> It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.

But it is pertinent to the statement "Any action taken by a pilot in command
after declaration of an emergency is not subject to modification or second
guessing by ATC or anyone else until after the flight is terminated."

>> As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like
>> the controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze"
>> reports excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever,
>> contain all the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that
>> I'm getting the whole complete story :-/

> The tape recording and the fact AAL wrote to the FAA is good enough for
> me.

IOW your PT program consists of running off at a keyboard and jumping to
conclusions :-/

It could well be in this instance the controller screwed-up. As I said it
sure looks like it from here. But any real determination will be made by
facility management, QA, and perhaps outside investigators who will all have
access to all the information.

It's just that I've been involved in doing enough incident investigations to
know that tapes don't always tell whole story and a complaint letter from
the aircraft operator doesn't constitute factual evidence.

Not to mention the so-called accuracy of reports on any even semi-technical
subject by today's media would be laughable if it weren't for the number of
sheep who swallow them hook, line, and sinker :-(

KP wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>KP wrote:
>>
>>>Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
>>>-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
>>>one runway?
>>>
>>
>>Never happened in my world.
>
>
> And therefore it never has or will? It has happened and when it did someone
> other than one of several "pilots in command" of the several emergency
> aircraft made the decision on who's first and who got what. When it happens
> again, and it will, the decisions will again be made by someone else.
> Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that someone is ATC.

Most air carrier airports have more than one runway. That is why it
never happened in my world.

I also flew a lot of light-twin turboprop into a single runway airport
as you suggest. We always carried fuel for nearby airports because of
the distinct possibility the runway could have a disabled aircraft on it
at our arrival.
>
>
>>>-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
>>>the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can
>>>wait?
>>
>>First come, first served.
>
>
> So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
> emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
> emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
> guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
> an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
> dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
> at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.
>
No one can anticipate the future second emergency at the time the first
emergency is declared.

USAF operations are far more volatile than most civil operations.
>
>>>Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.
>>
>>It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.
>
>
> But it is pertinent to the statement "Any action taken by a pilot in command
> after declaration of an emergency is not subject to modification or second
> guessing by ATC or anyone else until after the flight is terminated."

Perhaps it is pertinent but it does not change the fact that the PIC
calls the shots in an emergency, not ATC. Good judgment is a
presumption on my part; thus a pilot with an emergency is not going to
insist on a runway that is closed.~
>
>

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
> -What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
> one runway?
>
> -What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
> the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?
>

A USAF pilot called for a priority landing because his F-100 was running "a
bit peaked." ATC told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a
B-52 that had an engine out. "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded
seven-engine approach."

KP writes:

> So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
> emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
> emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
> guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
> an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
> dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
> at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.

This isn't the military.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> Perhaps it is pertinent but it does not change the fact that the PIC
> calls the shots in an emergency, not ATC. Good judgment is a
> presumption on my part; thus a pilot with an emergency is not going to
> insist on a runway that is closed.~

I dunno ... Dean Martin did.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> Why do you think that?

That's what most people here seem to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
>>-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
>>one runway?
>>
>>-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
>>the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?
>>
>
>
> A USAF pilot called for a priority landing because his F-100 was running "a
> bit peaked." ATC told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a
> B-52 that had an engine out. "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded
> seven-engine approach."
>
>

And then he said "switching to guns."

Matt

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Why do you think that?
>
>
> That's what most people here seem to believe.
>
Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight
simulators.

Sam Spade > wrote:
> USAF operations are far more volatile than most civil operations.

I like the Navy's approach. If the first emergency is blocking the runway,
just shove it over the side and let the next guy land.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>
>>The FAA could run this in
>>their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW ...
>
>
> I thought simulators didn't count.
>
> How much time did you spend in their simulator trying this out?
>
As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's just YOUR
simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the clueless yahoo
attempting to utilize it.

If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to
ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal
with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being
asked about landing there.

I'm not advocating the actions of ATC here, but I am suggesting that the
crew acted in a manner contrary to what they were saying.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104
>

Sam Spade wrote:
> http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104
>

I listened to the tape all the way through.

FIRE THE CONTROLLER.

I'd have been yelling at him, at that point.

Sam Spade writes:

> Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight
> simulators.

Same thing. Another artificial distinction being made.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Rip writes:

> As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's just YOUR
> simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the clueless yahoo
> attempting to utilize it.

Quite a revealing statement.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The FAA has a simulator for ATC training at OKC, they can
simulate traffic and weather to reproduce any condition at
any airport.


"Rip" > wrote in message
t...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" >
writes:
| >
| >
| >>The FAA could run this in
| >>their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW ...
| >
| >
| > I thought simulators didn't count.
| >
| > How much time did you spend in their simulator trying
this out?
| >
| As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's
just YOUR
| simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the
clueless yahoo
| attempting to utilize it.

Jim Carter wrote:
> If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
> overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to
> ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal
> with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being
> asked about landing there.
>
> I'm not advocating the actions of ATC here, but I am suggesting that the
> crew acted in a manner contrary to what they were saying.
>

That is difficult to say. Perhaps he was sufficently higher passing
Love that it would have taken more time to land there.

An example I am familar with is passing Ontario Airport on the way into
Los Angeles. You are usually at 14,000 feet passing Ontario and on a
fuel efficent profile to land at LAX. That is a judgment call that can
go either way.

I wouldn't second guess his decision to stick with a company airport
that may have been on the best fuel-efficient descent profile.

It is part of the review that I am sure was conducted about his
decisions. Nonetheless, at the time, that decision was not for anyone
in ATC to question. Only after the fact was it reasonable to determine
what, in fact, were the nearest suitable airports.

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
>
> If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
> overfly other suitable airports?
>

What other suitable airports did they overfly?


>
> That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an
> issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft
> and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there.
>

Which way were they landing at DAL?

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is difficult to say. Perhaps he was sufficently higher passing Love
> that it would have taken more time to land there.
>
> An example I am familar with is passing Ontario Airport on the way into
> Los Angeles. You are usually at 14,000 feet passing Ontario and on a fuel
> efficent profile to land at LAX. That is a judgment call that can go
> either way.
>
> I wouldn't second guess his decision to stick with a company airport that
> may have been on the best fuel-efficient descent profile.
>
> It is part of the review that I am sure was conducted about his decisions.
> Nonetheless, at the time, that decision was not for anyone in ATC to
> question. Only after the fact was it reasonable to determine what, in
> fact, were the nearest suitable airports.
>

DAL would have been only about 4 miles closer that DFW, but DFW has about
4600' more runway.

Jim Carter wrote:

> If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
> overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to
> ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal
> with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being
> asked about landing there.

I don't know. It isn't relevant to what happened. During a declared
emergency the PIC gets what he or she needs. The questions come later.
That didn't happen in this case and that is all that matters.

Matt

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
> If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
> overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to
> ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal
> with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after
> being asked about landing there.

Between Tulsa and DFW, which airports would those be?


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight
>>simulators.
>
>
> Same thing. Another artificial distinction being made.
>

Please explain the artificial distinction?

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The FAA has a simulator for ATC training at OKC, they can
> simulate traffic and weather to reproduce any condition at
> any airport.

As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.

These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
in-service purposes.

Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~

Sam Spade writes:

> Please explain the artificial distinction?

Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?)
simulation.

The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and
"whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.
>
> These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
> accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
> in-service purposes.
>
> Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~

The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary.

MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would
impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the
product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten.

Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means
certification.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.
>>
>>These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
>>accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
>>in-service purposes.
>>
>>Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~
>
>
> The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary.
>
> MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would
> impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the
> product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten.
>
> Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means
> certification.
>
O-kay

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Please explain the artificial distinction?
>
>
> Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?)
> simulation.
>
> The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and
> "whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target.
>

You have created your own "prison."

A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the
actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a
type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications.

Level D has high-level visual simulation of good and minimum visibility
conditions, and so forth.

You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a
simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator.

Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect.

Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight
simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT! I have previously
provided you with fatal issues with MSFS, which, as I recall you stated,
"I will check those out." Of course, that meant you did not accept my
claims and, according to your form, you did not bother to report your
findings in the group.

Sam Spade writes:

> A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the
> actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a
> type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications.

As soon as I have $11 million, I'm going to get me one of those.

> You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a
> simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator.

It all depends on what type of simulation you want.

And certification does not equate to realism, it just equates to ...
certification.

> Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect.

You are.

> Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight
> simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT!

It absolutely is. It depends on the level you choose.

Why such hostility towards PC simulators, I wonder? Something tells me that
no matter how good they get, someone will always find a reason why they aren't
"good enough." I've been using them for a long time, and they've come a long
way.

I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which taught me
that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know well. I
guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy
navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to guide
me (plus visual information).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
<snip>
> I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which taught me
> that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know well. I
> guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy
> navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to guide
> me (plus visual information).
>

You mean you can "navigate" with the little airplane pictures on the
simulated moving map gps but you have no idea how to navigate without
one (a gps). "only a vor/dme" to guide someone is all you need for
instrument flight. It is all I have in my plane. I do just fine.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.
>>
>>These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
>>accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
>>in-service purposes.
>>
>>Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~
>
>
> The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary.
>
> MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would
> impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the
> product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten.
>
> Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means
> certification.
>

I bet you are certifiable.

Tim writes:

> You mean you can "navigate" with the little airplane pictures on the
> simulated moving map gps but you have no idea how to navigate without
> one (a gps).

No, that's not what I mean. I can navigate with a chart and a single VOR/DME
receiver, or two VOR receivers (a single VOR without DME is more difficult).
That's what I did today.

However, I usually use more elaborate navigation, especially when flying IFR.
Today's flight was VFR, and so it was mostly trying to follow highways and
recognize mountains and stuff on the ground. I resorted to tuning a VOR when
it became evident that I had become somewhat lost, after mistaking one valley
for another.

> "only a vor/dme" to guide someone is all you need for
> instrument flight. It is all I have in my plane. I do just fine.

It's adequate, but perhaps not ideal. In instrument flight, the more you have
to help you, the better. The purpose of real-world instrument flight is not
to prove how well you can navigate with how little, but to get you home
safely.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
<snip> The purpose of real-world instrument flight is not
> to prove how well you can navigate with how little, but to get you home
> safely.
>

What the F do you know about "real-world" instrument flight?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the
>>actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a
>>type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications.
>
>
> As soon as I have $11 million, I'm going to get me one of those.
>
>
>>You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a
>>simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator.
>
>
> It all depends on what type of simulation you want.

Well, not exactly, at least for FAA-approved flight simulation.

In your case, since you invent your own rules, a 48 Desoto might be a
good flight simulator for a Boeing 777.
>
> And certification does not equate to realism, it just equates to ...
> certification.
>
Lots of folks who know a WHOLE lot more than you do who work for the FAA
and other nations' aviation authorities that would strongly disagree
with you.

You love to argue in generalities; the argument of a intellectual coward
and bully.

>
>>Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight
>>simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT!
>
>
> It absolutely is. It depends on the level you choose.

It is not even a good game.
>
> Why such hostility towards PC simulators, I wonder? Something tells me that
> no matter how good they get, someone will always find a reason why they aren't
> "good enough." I've been using them for a long time, and they've come a long
> way.

PC simulator is an oxymoron in the world of compentent aviation operations.

There are some PC training programs that have some value, such as the
Elite product line. MSFS is useless, for specific reasons I have
previously mentioned to you and which you have chosen to ignore in your
usual ignorant (if not stupid) manner.
>
> I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which taught me
> that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know well. I
> guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy
> navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to guide
> me (plus visual information).
>
Was that in a 48 Desoto?

Tim wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which
>> taught me
>> that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know
>> well. I
>> guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy
>> navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to
>> guide
>> me (plus visual information).
>>
>
> You mean you can "navigate" with the little airplane pictures on the
> simulated moving map gps but you have no idea how to navigate without
> one (a gps). "only a vor/dme" to guide someone is all you need for
> instrument flight. It is all I have in my plane. I do just fine.
>
>
The different is you are a trained, *certificated* pilot.

Tim wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> <snip> The purpose of real-world instrument flight is not
>
>> to prove how well you can navigate with how little, but to get you home
>> safely.
>>
>
> What the F do you know about "real-world" instrument flight?

Zip

"Tim" > wrote in message ...
>
> You mean you can "navigate" with the little airplane pictures on the
> simulated moving map gps but you have no idea how to navigate without
> one (a gps). "only a vor/dme" to guide someone is all you need for
> instrument flight. It is all I have in my plane. I do just fine.
>

And the DME is purely luxury, you know.
I've taken VOR cross-bearings with a single working VOR receiver.

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message ...
>
>>You mean you can "navigate" with the little airplane pictures on the
>>simulated moving map gps but you have no idea how to navigate without
>>one (a gps). "only a vor/dme" to guide someone is all you need for
>>instrument flight. It is all I have in my plane. I do just fine.
>>
>
>
> And the DME is purely luxury, you know.
> I've taken VOR cross-bearings with a single working VOR receiver.
>
You guys are spoiled. My cross-countries for my private where without
any nav equipment.

And, until GPS came along, a typical day, VFR cross-country from the Los
Angeles area up to Idaho or Montana was without nav aids much of the way.

Good old pilotage, which works pretty well in the western non-urban areas.

Tim writes:

> What the F do you know about "real-world" instrument flight?

More than some people, apparently, particularly the tin-can pilots who have
never done it or studied it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> The different is you are a trained, *certificated* pilot.

The more I read here, the less the training and certification seems to
represent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> Well, not exactly, at least for FAA-approved flight simulation.

I don't need FAA approval.

> Lots of folks who know a WHOLE lot more than you do who work for the FAA
> and other nations' aviation authorities that would strongly disagree
> with you.

They have their egos, too. But no doubt there are people who know a lot more
than I do. It's unfortunate that so few of them post to this newsgroup.

> It is not even a good game.

That's probably true, although I'm not a very good judge of games. It lacks
many of the characteristics of a good game.

> PC simulator is an oxymoron in the world of compentent aviation operations.

Hardly. PC simulators are useful just as other simulators are useful. It
depends on what you require.

> There are some PC training programs that have some value, such as the
> Elite product line.

Elite looks interesting and I'm sure it's very useful for the purposes for
which it is intended. It's an example of very specialized simulation, whereas
MSFS is much more generalized. Overall, the more you try to simulate
accurately, the less accurately any specific area of the simulation will be,
unless you have unlimited hardware capabilities.

Unfortunately, the Elite software is very expensive and it apparently requires
a hardware key. The basic software is already $499. The FAA approval applies
only to specialized hardware and software, which is ten times more expensive.

All of that is a lot to pay for something that is only very slightly more
accurate than MSFS in a few domains. But if someone gave me one I wouldn't
turn it down.

> MSFS is useless, for specific reasons I have
> previously mentioned to you and which you have chosen to ignore in your
> usual ignorant (if not stupid) manner.

I don't lend much credence to emotional overgeneralizations. "Useless" is so
obviously incorrect that it is not worth addressing.

> Was that in a 48 Desoto?

No, a Baron 58, my favorite tin can.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>The different is you are a trained, *certificated* pilot.
>
>
> The more I read here, the less the training and certification seems to
> represent.
>

Again, a glittering generality unsupported by speficics. It appears to
me you wouldn't know whether any technical assertion made on this forum
is right or wrong.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Well, not exactly, at least for FAA-approved flight simulation.
>
>
> I don't need FAA approval.
>
>
>>Lots of folks who know a WHOLE lot more than you do who work for the FAA
>>and other nations' aviation authorities that would strongly disagree
>>with you.
>
>
> They have their egos, too. But no doubt there are people who know a lot more
> than I do. It's unfortunate that so few of them post to this newsgroup.

Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
is just too much money and safety involved.
>
>
>>It is not even a good game.
>
>
> That's probably true, although I'm not a very good judge of games. It lacks
> many of the characteristics of a good game.
>
>
>>PC simulator is an oxymoron in the world of compentent aviation operations.
>
>
> Hardly. PC simulators are useful just as other simulators are useful. It
> depends on what you require.

They are training devices, at best. You keep saying "simulator." Try
saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
means.
>
>
>>There are some PC training programs that have some value, such as the
>>Elite product line.
>
>
> Elite looks interesting and I'm sure it's very useful for the purposes for
> which it is intended. It's an example of very specialized simulation, whereas
> MSFS is much more generalized. Overall, the more you try to simulate
> accurately, the less accurately any specific area of the simulation will be,
> unless you have unlimited hardware capabilities.


Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.
>
> Unfortunately, the Elite software is very expensive and it apparently requires
> a hardware key. The basic software is already $499. The FAA approval applies
> only to specialized hardware and software, which is ten times more expensive.
>
> All of that is a lot to pay for something that is only very slightly more
> accurate than MSFS in a few domains. But if someone gave me one I wouldn't
> turn it down.

Slightly more accurate? You just don't get it. When are you going to
be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
you here several weeks ago?
>
>
>>MSFS is useless, for specific reasons I have
>>previously mentioned to you and which you have chosen to ignore in your
>>usual ignorant (if not stupid) manner.
>
>
> I don't lend much credence to emotional overgeneralizations. "Useless" is so
> obviously incorrect that it is not worth addressing.
>
>
>>Was that in a 48 Desoto?
>
>
> No, a Baron 58, my favorite tin can.
>

What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?

Sam Spade writes:

> Again, a glittering generality unsupported by speficics.

The number of mistakes made here by self-proclaimed "real pilots" has
surprised me somewhat, although I realize that many of them are very low-time
pilots whose experience has been limited to tiny tin cans under VFR. Often
their biggest mistake is in believing that their experience represents all
experience.

> It appears to
> me you wouldn't know whether any technical assertion made on this forum
> is right or wrong.

The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
the more likely he is to be wrong.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

> Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
> is just too much money and safety involved.

Not according to what I've heard from instructors and pilots who use them.
They are so realistic, in fact, that the same ego problems that plague
real-life cockpits tend to carry over into the simulators. The fact that most
pilots are being watched or tested in a simulator may induce them to behave a
bit more, but that is all.

> They are training devices, at best.

They can be training devices if your objective is to fly a real aircraft. If
you don't care about flying real aircraft, they can be ends in themselves.

> You keep saying "simulator." Try
> saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
> means.

A flight simulator is merely one type of simulator.

> Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
> unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.

Elite models the ergonomics of the cockpit very poorly indeed, and specialized
hardware is only a slight improvement.

> Slightly more accurate?

Yes, slightly more accurate. For every increase in accuracy you get with the
Elite, you lose something. It depends on what you want. It definitely looks
interesting for IFR, but I don't see what it adds for the rest.

> You just don't get it. When are you going to
> be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
> you here several weeks ago?

When you quantify them in test scenarios that can be carried out with
precision.

> What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?

No FAA ratings, as I don't fly the real aircraft and don't need any ratings.

Total flight time is in the thousands of hours; I don't have specific numbers
as every reinstall of the software, etc., resets the counters. I do recall
studying basic ground school textbooks at the age of around eight, and I was
playing with toy airplanes long before that, so the interest in aviation has
proven quite durable. The only actual aircraft in which I've flown (as a
passenger) have been passenger jets, mostly 737s.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
> And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
> the more likely he is to be wrong.
>

You just described yourself.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I receive.
> And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his answers,
> the more likely he is to be wrong.
>

As they say in court, "Objection, your honor! That is an assertion of a
fact not entered into evidence."

Also, you lamented that the FAA doesn't participate here. Well, there
are two ATC controllers who also are pilots that hang out here. But,
they do it primarily because of their advocation.

If you knew anything about the FAA you would know they would not have
any official presence on this, or any other user forum. First, it is
not part of anyone's job decription at the FAA and, second, very few of
those folks would ever do anything more than they have to.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Egos were worked out of full-motion flight simulators long ago. There
>>is just too much money and safety involved.
>
>
> Not according to what I've heard from instructors and pilots who use them.
> They are so realistic, in fact, that the same ego problems that plague
> real-life cockpits tend to carry over into the simulators. The fact that most
> pilots are being watched or tested in a simulator may induce them to behave a
> bit more, but that is all.
>
You lost me. I thought you were speaking of egos in flight simulator
design.

>
>>You keep saying "simulator." Try
>>saying "flight simulator," then try finding out what ""flight simulator"
>>means.
>
>
> A flight simulator is merely one type of simulator.

Not so in the realm of flight training.
>
>
>>Elite actually models winds aloft correctly, unlike the crude,
>>unsophisticated, incorrectly written code for MSFS.
>
>
> Elite models the ergonomics of the cockpit very poorly indeed, and specialized
> hardware is only a slight improvement.
>
>
>>Slightly more accurate?
>
>
> Yes, slightly more accurate. For every increase in accuracy you get with the
> Elite, you lose something. It depends on what you want. It definitely looks
> interesting for IFR, but I don't see what it adds for the rest.
>
>
>>You just don't get it. When are you going to
>>be finished "checking out" the fundamental errors in MSFS I provided to
>>you here several weeks ago?
>
>
> When you quantify them in test scenarios that can be carried out with
> precision.

Yeah, right.
>
>
>>What are your FAA ratings and total flight time?
>
>
> No FAA ratings, as I don't fly the real aircraft and don't need any ratings.
>
> Total flight time is in the thousands of hours; I don't have specific numbers
> as every reinstall of the software, etc., resets the counters. I do recall
> studying basic ground school textbooks at the age of around eight, and I was
> playing with toy airplanes long before that, so the interest in aviation has
> proven quite durable. The only actual aircraft in which I've flown (as a
> passenger) have been passenger jets, mostly 737s.
>

You are so full of ****.

Sam Spade writes:

> You lost me. I thought you were speaking of egos in flight simulator
> design.

Oh. I don't know anything about that. I suppose it's no different from egos
in other types of software design.

> Not so in the realm of flight training.

Even for flight training, there are multiple types of simulators. But not
everyone uses simulators to train for something else.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this thread
so I suspect you already knew that Matt.

I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK pilot
that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued on
past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
questioning.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> t...
>> If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
>> overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested
>> to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to
>> deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even
>> after being asked about landing there.
>
> Between Tulsa and DFW, which airports would those be?
>
>
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC
> Colorado Springs, CO

> I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK pilot
> that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued on
> past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
> questioning.

In fact, it was a British Airways 747 that continued on three engines, not
one. Here's an interesting column about that the incident:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/193882-1.html

Jim Carter wrote:
> I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
> mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this thread
> so I suspect you already knew that Matt.

Did you see the plot I posted in a similar thread? DAL and DFW 17C were
the same distance from his position at declaration.

Check the message I left pointing to the graphic, in which I give the
Part 121 perspective.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>What the F do you know about "real-world" instrument flight?
>
>
> More than some people, apparently, particularly the tin-can pilots who have
> never done it or studied it.
>


What did you get on the FAA (written) knowledge test? How was your
instrument checkride?

What's that you say? Didn't take either of them? You are living in a
fantasy world. Face it. If everyone/most people you intereact with -
in real life, your fantasy world, or the internet all say you are a
little off or nuts or gcrazy or need to grow up - the problem isn;t with
them. Guess where the problem lies...

Given the little I know of you based on your own comments about phobias
and the like - I would venture to say that you have a significant mental
problem and have problems with reality. Most everyone here seems to
understand that you are not living in the real world.

Again, until you fly for real, keep your smart-ass, arrogant,
simulator-based comments to yourself.

You're right - my mistake.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Barry" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK
>> pilot
>> that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued
>> on
>> past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
>> questioning.
>
> In fact, it was a British Airways 747 that continued on three engines, not
> one. Here's an interesting column about that the incident:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/193882-1.html
>
>
>

Just saw it Sam. Nice perspective and probably pretty accurate too. I am no
way advocating that ATC did right, I was just wondering if the actions of
the aircrew might seem inconsistent with their declarations. I'm not sure
that can be answered, but it really shouldn't matter either.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Carter wrote:
>> I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
>> mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this
>> thread so I suspect you already knew that Matt.
>
> Did you see the plot I posted in a similar thread? DAL and DFW 17C were
> the same distance from his position at declaration.
>
> Check the message I left pointing to the graphic, in which I give the Part
> 121 perspective.

I'm going have to go pull mxmaniac out of my kill file - I can only see you
guys arguing with him and the conversation just doesn't keep up.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I
>> receive.
>> And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his
>> answers,
>> the more likely he is to be wrong.
>>
>
> You just described yourself.

Tim writes:

> What did you get on the FAA (written) knowledge test? How was your
> instrument checkride?

I haven't taken the test, nor have I taken any checkrides.

> What's that you say? Didn't take either of them?

Right. Of course, even people who do well on them had not taken them before
they took them.

> Again, until you fly for real, keep your smart-ass, arrogant,
> simulator-based comments to yourself.

I don't make smart-ass or arrogant comments, so that's not a problem.
However, if I feel like discussing aviation simulation, I will, with or
without your approval.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John R. Copeland > wrote:
> And the DME is purely luxury, you know.
> I've taken VOR cross-bearings with a single working VOR receiver.

The DME does make life a lot simpler, doesn't it?

On my checkride, the DE asked me to figure out our location after I came
out from under the hood. I used one VOR and the DME, and showed him our
position on the chart.

He challenged me on how I could do it with one VOR, but I explained about
the DME, and he seemed to accept the explanation. He didn't seem happy about
it, though. (I'm not sure if he had realized there was a DME in the
plane before I used it.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Sam Spade > wrote:
> You guys are spoiled. My cross-countries for my private where without
> any nav equipment.

Did you have a compass?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
> mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this thread
> so I suspect you already knew that Matt.
>

How does the distance to DFW compare to the distance to DAL from that point?


>
> I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK
> pilot that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA
> continued on past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem.
> That's all I'm questioning.
>

He continued on with three engines, not one.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>What did you get on the FAA (written) knowledge test? How was your
>>instrument checkride?
>
>
> I haven't taken the test, nor have I taken any checkrides.
>
>
>>What's that you say? Didn't take either of them?
>
>
> Right. Of course, even people who do well on them had not taken them before
> they took them.
>
>

So, then, how can you make a claim that you know more about real IFR
flying than others posting to this newsgroup? How do you demonstrate
knowledge (or lack of it in your case) to support your claim?

Tim writes:

> So, then, how can you make a claim that you know more about real IFR
> flying than others posting to this newsgroup?

I've made no such claim, but I'm sure there are people on this group who know
less about IFR than I do.

> How do you demonstrate knowledge (or lack of it in your case)
> to support your claim?

I occasionally answer questions, when I have the answers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.